Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between the written and artistic work in practice-based Ph.D. dissertations is often ambiguous, leaving the student to languish as they navigate ill-defined expectations tied to a daunting ideal of ‘scholarly writing’ they feel pressured to meet, uncertain about its purpose in relation to their artistic practice. This ambiguity about the place of writing in practice-based Ph.D. programmes has been at the forefront of debates in the European Union’s Bologna Process. In this article, Álvarez investigates the problem writing presents in the context of doctoral programmes in which creative practice is the cornerstone of the thesis project. Probing expectations that the written portion of the dissertation serve an exegetical function that explains the significance of the work of art, Álvarez examines the ways in which written requirements in practice-based Ph.D. programmes trouble foundational premises of art-making in relation to knowledge-making and offers a way of framing writing that collapses the hierarchy being writing and art-making.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".